agora inbox for [email protected]
help / color / mirror / Atom feedStill not happy with psql's multiline history behavior
2894+ messages / 4 participants
[nested] [flat]
* Still not happy with psql's multiline history behavior
@ 2006-05-31 14:13 Tom Lane <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 2 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Tom Lane @ 2006-05-31 14:13 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Sergey E. Koposov <[email protected]>; Bruce Momjian <[email protected]>; +Cc: pgsql-hackers
I'm getting grudgingly more used to CVS HEAD's behavior of stuffing a
multiline command into the history buffer as a single item, but there's
still something bothering me about it. I've finally put my finger on
what. I think it should not combine SQL text and backslash commands
into a single history entry. The example that seriously sucks is:
regression=# select foo ...
regression-# \r
Query buffer reset (cleared).
now control-P brings back:
regression=# select foo ...
\r
In the case where I type SQL and backslash on one line, of course it
can't break them apart, but I think there should be a general rule that
a line starting with a backslash is always a separate history entry.
Also, \e is seriously broken: after you edit the text and exit the
editor, the text is not reloaded into the visible display (although it
does seem to still be "behind the scenes" somewhere).
regards, tom lane
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* Re [HACKERS]: Still not happy with psql's multiline history behavior
@ 2006-06-04 04:35 Sergey E. Koposov <[email protected]>
parent: Tom Lane <[email protected]>
1 sibling, 1 reply; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Sergey E. Koposov @ 2006-06-04 04:35 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Tom Lane <[email protected]>; +Cc: Bruce Momjian <[email protected]>; [email protected]
Hello,
I'm sending the patch fixing the \r bug:
On Wed, 31 May 2006, Tom Lane wrote:
> The example that seriously sucks is:
>
> regression=# select foo ...
> regression-# \r
> Query buffer reset (cleared).
> now control-P brings back:
> regression=# select foo ...
> \r
In my fix the currently-written query is completely erased if \r is
invoked. I think that's the most logic behavior.
So, the example of work:
wsdb=# select 1;
?column?
----------
1
(1 row)
wsdb=# select
wsdb-# \r
Query buffer reset (cleared).
wsdb=#
Control-P now brings back:
wsdb=# \r
Another Control-P brings back:
wsdb=# select 1;
> Also, \e is seriously broken: after you edit the text and exit the
> editor, the text is not reloaded into the visible display (although it
> does seem to still be "behind the scenes" somewhere).
For that part, I currently do not see the possible fix, and I don't even
think that it should be fixed, because there with current multi-line
implementation there is no need for that.
For example, when we do
wsdb=# select 1+
wsdb-#
And press Control-P , the string "select 1+" is not in the history, and
there is no need for that.
And in the case of \e editing, if in the external editor we have typed
the incomplete query like "select 1+", the situation will be exactly the
same and for the same reason...
So, I don't think, that this require fixing. In principal, probably it is
possible to fix that in a different way:
Suppose we executed the \e command and in the external editor we typed
"select 1 +". And after the exit from the editor, psql produce
wsdb=# select 1 +
(and put cursor in the end of the line).
That can be reasonable (I'm not sure that it's possible to do that with
readline, but should be).
But I would consider that as a new feature (probably not very useful), not
as a bug fix.
Regards,
Sergey
*******************************************************************
Sergey E. Koposov
Max Planck Institute for Astronomy/Sternberg Astronomical Institute
Tel: +49-6221-528-349 Web: http://lnfm1.sai.msu.ru/~math
E-mail: [email protected]
Index: src/bin/psql/command.c
===================================================================
RCS file: /projects/cvsroot/pgsql/src/bin/psql/command.c,v
retrieving revision 1.168
diff -c -r1.168 command.c
*** src/bin/psql/command.c 1 Jun 2006 00:15:36 -0000 1.168
--- src/bin/psql/command.c 4 Jun 2006 03:57:48 -0000
***************
*** 729,734 ****
--- 729,735 ----
psql_scan_reset(scan_state);
if (!quiet)
puts(_("Query buffer reset (cleared)."));
+ status = PSQL_CMD_RESET_BUFFER;
}
/* \s save history in a file or show it on the screen */
Index: src/bin/psql/command.h
===================================================================
RCS file: /projects/cvsroot/pgsql/src/bin/psql/command.h,v
retrieving revision 1.25
diff -c -r1.25 command.h
*** src/bin/psql/command.h 5 Mar 2006 15:58:51 -0000 1.25
--- src/bin/psql/command.h 4 Jun 2006 03:57:48 -0000
***************
*** 18,23 ****
--- 18,24 ----
PSQL_CMD_UNKNOWN = 0, /* not done parsing yet (internal only) */
PSQL_CMD_SEND, /* query complete; send off */
PSQL_CMD_SKIP_LINE, /* keep building query */
+ PSQL_CMD_RESET_BUFFER, /* reset the query buffer */
PSQL_CMD_TERMINATE, /* quit program */
PSQL_CMD_NEWEDIT, /* query buffer was changed (e.g., via \e) */
PSQL_CMD_ERROR /* the execution of the backslash command
Index: src/bin/psql/mainloop.c
===================================================================
RCS file: /projects/cvsroot/pgsql/src/bin/psql/mainloop.c,v
retrieving revision 1.74
diff -c -r1.74 mainloop.c
*** src/bin/psql/mainloop.c 21 Mar 2006 13:38:12 -0000 1.74
--- src/bin/psql/mainloop.c 4 Jun 2006 03:57:49 -0000
***************
*** 305,310 ****
--- 305,317 ----
*/
if (first_query_scan && pset.cur_cmd_interactive)
{
+ /* If the \r command have been sent we completely erase
+ * the previous (multiline command).
+ * It won't be in the history after that
+ */
+ if (slashCmdStatus == PSQL_CMD_RESET_BUFFER)
+ pg_clear_history(history_buf);
+
/* Sending a command (PSQL_CMD_SEND) zeros the length */
if (scan_result == PSCAN_BACKSLASH && query_buf->len != 0)
pg_write_history(line);
Attachments:
[text/plain] multiline.diff (2.2K, ../../[email protected]/2-multiline.diff)
download | inline diff:
Index: src/bin/psql/command.c
===================================================================
RCS file: /projects/cvsroot/pgsql/src/bin/psql/command.c,v
retrieving revision 1.168
diff -c -r1.168 command.c
*** src/bin/psql/command.c 1 Jun 2006 00:15:36 -0000 1.168
--- src/bin/psql/command.c 4 Jun 2006 03:57:48 -0000
***************
*** 729,734 ****
--- 729,735 ----
psql_scan_reset(scan_state);
if (!quiet)
puts(_("Query buffer reset (cleared)."));
+ status = PSQL_CMD_RESET_BUFFER;
}
/* \s save history in a file or show it on the screen */
Index: src/bin/psql/command.h
===================================================================
RCS file: /projects/cvsroot/pgsql/src/bin/psql/command.h,v
retrieving revision 1.25
diff -c -r1.25 command.h
*** src/bin/psql/command.h 5 Mar 2006 15:58:51 -0000 1.25
--- src/bin/psql/command.h 4 Jun 2006 03:57:48 -0000
***************
*** 18,23 ****
--- 18,24 ----
PSQL_CMD_UNKNOWN = 0, /* not done parsing yet (internal only) */
PSQL_CMD_SEND, /* query complete; send off */
PSQL_CMD_SKIP_LINE, /* keep building query */
+ PSQL_CMD_RESET_BUFFER, /* reset the query buffer */
PSQL_CMD_TERMINATE, /* quit program */
PSQL_CMD_NEWEDIT, /* query buffer was changed (e.g., via \e) */
PSQL_CMD_ERROR /* the execution of the backslash command
Index: src/bin/psql/mainloop.c
===================================================================
RCS file: /projects/cvsroot/pgsql/src/bin/psql/mainloop.c,v
retrieving revision 1.74
diff -c -r1.74 mainloop.c
*** src/bin/psql/mainloop.c 21 Mar 2006 13:38:12 -0000 1.74
--- src/bin/psql/mainloop.c 4 Jun 2006 03:57:49 -0000
***************
*** 305,310 ****
--- 305,317 ----
*/
if (first_query_scan && pset.cur_cmd_interactive)
{
+ /* If the \r command have been sent we completely erase
+ * the previous (multiline command).
+ * It won't be in the history after that
+ */
+ if (slashCmdStatus == PSQL_CMD_RESET_BUFFER)
+ pg_clear_history(history_buf);
+
/* Sending a command (PSQL_CMD_SEND) zeros the length */
if (scan_result == PSCAN_BACKSLASH && query_buf->len != 0)
pg_write_history(line);
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* Re: [HACKERS] Still not happy with psql's multiline history behavior
@ 2006-06-04 04:36 Bruce Momjian <[email protected]>
parent: Tom Lane <[email protected]>
1 sibling, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Bruce Momjian @ 2006-06-04 04:36 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Tom Lane <[email protected]>; +Cc: Sergey E. Koposov <[email protected]>; PostgreSQL-patches <[email protected]>
I think I have fixed both problems with the attached, applied patch.
Please let me know if it is OK.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tom Lane wrote:
> I'm getting grudgingly more used to CVS HEAD's behavior of stuffing a
> multiline command into the history buffer as a single item, but there's
> still something bothering me about it. I've finally put my finger on
> what. I think it should not combine SQL text and backslash commands
> into a single history entry. The example that seriously sucks is:
>
> regression=# select foo ...
> regression-# \r
> Query buffer reset (cleared).
> now control-P brings back:
> regression=# select foo ...
> \r
>
> In the case where I type SQL and backslash on one line, of course it
> can't break them apart, but I think there should be a general rule that
> a line starting with a backslash is always a separate history entry.
>
> Also, \e is seriously broken: after you edit the text and exit the
> editor, the text is not reloaded into the visible display (although it
> does seem to still be "behind the scenes" somewhere).
>
> regards, tom lane
>
> ---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
> TIP 5: don't forget to increase your free space map settings
>
--
Bruce Momjian http://candle.pha.pa.us
EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com
+ If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. +
Attachments:
[text/x-diff] /bjm/diff (924B, ../../[email protected]/2-%2Fbjm%2Fdiff)
download | inline diff:
Index: src/bin/psql/mainloop.c
===================================================================
RCS file: /cvsroot/pgsql/src/bin/psql/mainloop.c,v
retrieving revision 1.74
diff -c -c -r1.74 mainloop.c
*** src/bin/psql/mainloop.c 21 Mar 2006 13:38:12 -0000 1.74
--- src/bin/psql/mainloop.c 4 Jun 2006 04:33:34 -0000
***************
*** 306,312 ****
if (first_query_scan && pset.cur_cmd_interactive)
{
/* Sending a command (PSQL_CMD_SEND) zeros the length */
! if (scan_result == PSCAN_BACKSLASH && query_buf->len != 0)
pg_write_history(line);
else
pg_append_history(line, history_buf);
--- 306,312 ----
if (first_query_scan && pset.cur_cmd_interactive)
{
/* Sending a command (PSQL_CMD_SEND) zeros the length */
! if (scan_result == PSCAN_BACKSLASH && history_buf->len != 0)
pg_write_history(line);
else
pg_append_history(line, history_buf);
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* Re: Re [HACKERS]: Still not happy with psql's multiline history behavior
@ 2006-06-04 04:45 Bruce Momjian <[email protected]>
parent: Sergey E. Koposov <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 1 reply; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Bruce Momjian @ 2006-06-04 04:45 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Sergey E. Koposov <[email protected]>; +Cc: Tom Lane <[email protected]>; [email protected]
Sergey E. Koposov wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I'm sending the patch fixing the \r bug:
Funny, I just applied a simpler fix for the \r bug. Please review it.
Thanks.
I am confused by the \e bug. I just tried 8.1.X and it seems to behave
the same as CVS HEAD. What exactly should it do?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> On Wed, 31 May 2006, Tom Lane wrote:
>
> > The example that seriously sucks is:
> >
> > regression=# select foo ...
> > regression-# \r
> > Query buffer reset (cleared).
> > now control-P brings back:
> > regression=# select foo ...
> > \r
>
> In my fix the currently-written query is completely erased if \r is
> invoked. I think that's the most logic behavior.
> So, the example of work:
>
> wsdb=# select 1;
> ?column?
> ----------
> 1
> (1 row)
>
> wsdb=# select
> wsdb-# \r
> Query buffer reset (cleared).
> wsdb=#
> Control-P now brings back:
> wsdb=# \r
>
> Another Control-P brings back:
> wsdb=# select 1;
>
>
> > Also, \e is seriously broken: after you edit the text and exit the
> > editor, the text is not reloaded into the visible display (although it
> > does seem to still be "behind the scenes" somewhere).
>
> For that part, I currently do not see the possible fix, and I don't even
> think that it should be fixed, because there with current multi-line
> implementation there is no need for that.
>
> For example, when we do
> wsdb=# select 1+
> wsdb-#
> And press Control-P , the string "select 1+" is not in the history, and
> there is no need for that.
>
> And in the case of \e editing, if in the external editor we have typed
> the incomplete query like "select 1+", the situation will be exactly the
> same and for the same reason...
>
> So, I don't think, that this require fixing. In principal, probably it is
> possible to fix that in a different way:
> Suppose we executed the \e command and in the external editor we typed
> "select 1 +". And after the exit from the editor, psql produce
> wsdb=# select 1 +
> (and put cursor in the end of the line).
>
> That can be reasonable (I'm not sure that it's possible to do that with
> readline, but should be).
> But I would consider that as a new feature (probably not very useful), not
> as a bug fix.
>
> Regards,
> Sergey
>
> *******************************************************************
> Sergey E. Koposov
> Max Planck Institute for Astronomy/Sternberg Astronomical Institute
> Tel: +49-6221-528-349 Web: http://lnfm1.sai.msu.ru/~math
> E-mail: [email protected]
Content-Description:
[ Attachment, skipping... ]
--
Bruce Momjian http://candle.pha.pa.us
EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com
+ If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. +
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* Re: Re [HACKERS]: Still not happy with psql's multiline history
@ 2006-06-04 04:57 Sergey E. Koposov <[email protected]>
parent: Bruce Momjian <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 1 reply; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Sergey E. Koposov @ 2006-06-04 04:57 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Bruce Momjian <[email protected]>; +Cc: Tom Lane <[email protected]>; [email protected]
On Sun, 4 Jun 2006, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> Sergey E. Koposov wrote:
>> Hello,
>>
>> I'm sending the patch fixing the \r bug:
>
> Funny, I just applied a simpler fix for the \r bug. Please review it.
> Thanks.
>
It is simpler, because it behaves differently.
Your patch for the case:
wsdb=# select
wsdb-# \r
Query buffer reset (cleared).
puts in the history two elements ("\r" and "select")
Mine puts only "\r", just because
<quote> \r reset (clear) the query buffer</quote>
and I think that's reasonable, but I don't insist...
> I am confused by the \e bug. I just tried 8.1.X and it seems to behave
> the same as CVS HEAD. What exactly should it do?
>
It is not actually a bug, I think it's a Tom's habit.
In 8.1.x if you type for example in the editor "select 1+" and exit from
it, the "select 1+" string will be already in the history. But in CVS HEAD
it will be saved internally, but it won't be shown in the history until the
user finishes the command with ';'. And there is really no need for
correcting that, I think.
Regards,
Sergey
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
>>
>> On Wed, 31 May 2006, Tom Lane wrote:
>>
>>> The example that seriously sucks is:
>>>
>>> regression=# select foo ...
>>> regression-# \r
>>> Query buffer reset (cleared).
>>> now control-P brings back:
>>> regression=# select foo ...
>>> \r
>>
>> In my fix the currently-written query is completely erased if \r is
>> invoked. I think that's the most logic behavior.
>> So, the example of work:
>>
>> wsdb=# select 1;
>> ?column?
>> ----------
>> 1
>> (1 row)
>>
>> wsdb=# select
>> wsdb-# \r
>> Query buffer reset (cleared).
>> wsdb=#
>> Control-P now brings back:
>> wsdb=# \r
>>
>> Another Control-P brings back:
>> wsdb=# select 1;
>>
>>
>>> Also, \e is seriously broken: after you edit the text and exit the
>>> editor, the text is not reloaded into the visible display (although it
>>> does seem to still be "behind the scenes" somewhere).
>>
>> For that part, I currently do not see the possible fix, and I don't even
>> think that it should be fixed, because there with current multi-line
>> implementation there is no need for that.
>>
>> For example, when we do
>> wsdb=# select 1+
>> wsdb-#
>> And press Control-P , the string "select 1+" is not in the history, and
>> there is no need for that.
>>
>> And in the case of \e editing, if in the external editor we have typed
>> the incomplete query like "select 1+", the situation will be exactly the
>> same and for the same reason...
>>
>> So, I don't think, that this require fixing. In principal, probably it is
>> possible to fix that in a different way:
>> Suppose we executed the \e command and in the external editor we typed
>> "select 1 +". And after the exit from the editor, psql produce
>> wsdb=# select 1 +
>> (and put cursor in the end of the line).
>>
>> That can be reasonable (I'm not sure that it's possible to do that with
>> readline, but should be).
>> But I would consider that as a new feature (probably not very useful), not
>> as a bug fix.
>>
>> Regards,
>> Sergey
>>
>> *******************************************************************
>> Sergey E. Koposov
>> Max Planck Institute for Astronomy/Sternberg Astronomical Institute
>> Tel: +49-6221-528-349 Web: http://lnfm1.sai.msu.ru/~math
>> E-mail: [email protected]
>
> Content-Description:
>
> [ Attachment, skipping... ]
>
> --
> Bruce Momjian http://candle.pha.pa.us
> EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com
>
> + If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. +
>
*******************************************************************
Sergey E. Koposov
Max Planck Institute for Astronomy/Sternberg Astronomical Institute
Tel: +49-6221-528-349
Web: http://lnfm1.sai.msu.ru/~math
E-mail: [email protected]
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* Re: Re [HACKERS]: Still not happy with psql's multiline history behavior
@ 2006-06-05 03:55 Bruce Momjian <[email protected]>
parent: Sergey E. Koposov <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Bruce Momjian @ 2006-06-05 03:55 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Sergey E. Koposov <[email protected]>; +Cc: Tom Lane <[email protected]>; [email protected]
Sergey E. Koposov wrote:
> On Sun, 4 Jun 2006, Bruce Momjian wrote:
>
> > Sergey E. Koposov wrote:
> >> Hello,
> >>
> >> I'm sending the patch fixing the \r bug:
> >
> > Funny, I just applied a simpler fix for the \r bug. Please review it.
> > Thanks.
> >
>
> It is simpler, because it behaves differently.
> Your patch for the case:
> wsdb=# select
> wsdb-# \r
> Query buffer reset (cleared).
>
> puts in the history two elements ("\r" and "select")
>
> Mine puts only "\r", just because
> <quote> \r reset (clear) the query buffer</quote>
> and I think that's reasonable, but I don't insist...
I think I like the fact there two separate entries, so we are OK.
> > I am confused by the \e bug. I just tried 8.1.X and it seems to behave
> > the same as CVS HEAD. What exactly should it do?
> >
>
> It is not actually a bug, I think it's a Tom's habit.
> In 8.1.x if you type for example in the editor "select 1+" and exit from
> it, the "select 1+" string will be already in the history. But in CVS HEAD
> it will be saved internally, but it won't be shown in the history until the
> user finishes the command with ';'. And there is really no need for
> correcting that, I think.
Thanks, that was clear. The attached patch fixes it. It is a little
larger than usual because I changed the name of the boolean and reversed
its usage. It now works like it did in 8.1.X.
--
Bruce Momjian http://candle.pha.pa.us
EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com
+ If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. +
Attachments:
[text/x-diff] /bjm/diff (2.7K, ../../[email protected]/2-%2Fbjm%2Fdiff)
download | inline diff:
Index: src/bin/psql/mainloop.c
===================================================================
RCS file: /cvsroot/pgsql/src/bin/psql/mainloop.c,v
retrieving revision 1.75
diff -c -c -r1.75 mainloop.c
*** src/bin/psql/mainloop.c 4 Jun 2006 04:35:55 -0000 1.75
--- src/bin/psql/mainloop.c 5 Jun 2006 03:50:11 -0000
***************
*** 41,47 ****
char *line; /* current line of input */
int added_nl_pos;
bool success;
! bool first_query_scan;
volatile int successResult = EXIT_SUCCESS;
volatile backslashResult slashCmdStatus = PSQL_CMD_UNKNOWN;
--- 41,47 ----
char *line; /* current line of input */
int added_nl_pos;
bool success;
! bool line_saved_in_history;
volatile int successResult = EXIT_SUCCESS;
volatile backslashResult slashCmdStatus = PSQL_CMD_UNKNOWN;
***************
*** 80,85 ****
--- 80,87 ----
/* main loop to get queries and execute them */
while (successResult == EXIT_SUCCESS)
{
+ line_saved_in_history = false;
+
/*
* Welcome code for Control-C
*/
***************
*** 154,159 ****
--- 156,163 ----
*/
pg_write_history(history_buf->data);
pg_clear_history(history_buf);
+ pg_write_history(line);
+ line_saved_in_history = true;
}
}
/* otherwise, get another line */
***************
*** 226,232 ****
*/
psql_scan_setup(scan_state, line, strlen(line));
success = true;
- first_query_scan = true;
while (success || !die_on_error)
{
--- 230,235 ----
***************
*** 303,319 ****
* down here so we can check for \g and other 'execute'
* backslash commands, which should be appended.
*/
! if (first_query_scan && pset.cur_cmd_interactive)
{
/* Sending a command (PSQL_CMD_SEND) zeros the length */
if (scan_result == PSCAN_BACKSLASH && history_buf->len != 0)
pg_write_history(line);
else
pg_append_history(line, history_buf);
}
- first_query_scan = false;
-
/* fall out of loop on \q or if lexer reached EOL */
if (slashCmdStatus == PSQL_CMD_TERMINATE ||
scan_result == PSCAN_INCOMPLETE ||
--- 306,321 ----
* down here so we can check for \g and other 'execute'
* backslash commands, which should be appended.
*/
! if (!line_saved_in_history && pset.cur_cmd_interactive)
{
/* Sending a command (PSQL_CMD_SEND) zeros the length */
if (scan_result == PSCAN_BACKSLASH && history_buf->len != 0)
pg_write_history(line);
else
pg_append_history(line, history_buf);
+ line_saved_in_history = true;
}
/* fall out of loop on \q or if lexer reached EOL */
if (slashCmdStatus == PSQL_CMD_TERMINATE ||
scan_result == PSCAN_INCOMPLETE ||
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2894+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2894+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2026-04-03 15:23 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 2894+ messages (download: mbox mbox.gz follow: Atom feed)
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2006-05-31 14:13 Still not happy with psql's multiline history behavior Tom Lane <[email protected]>
2006-06-04 04:35 ` Re [HACKERS]: Still not happy with psql's multiline history behavior Sergey E. Koposov <[email protected]>
2006-06-04 04:45 ` Re: Re [HACKERS]: Still not happy with psql's multiline history behavior Bruce Momjian <[email protected]>
2006-06-04 04:57 ` Re: Re [HACKERS]: Still not happy with psql's multiline history Sergey E. Koposov <[email protected]>
2006-06-05 03:55 ` Re: Re [HACKERS]: Still not happy with psql's multiline history behavior Bruce Momjian <[email protected]>
2006-06-04 04:36 ` Bruce Momjian <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
This inbox is served by agora; see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox