agora inbox for [email protected]
help / color / mirror / Atom feedRe: Call for platforms
2892+ messages / 4 participants
[nested] [flat]
* Re: Call for platforms
@ 2001-04-07 04:43 Giles Lean <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 1 reply; 2892+ messages in thread
From: Giles Lean @ 2001-04-07 04:43 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: [email protected]; +Cc: pgsql-hackers
> Thanks! I'm not too worried about 1.4.2, but be sure to let us know what
> the problem was; it may help out someone else...
NetBSD-1.4.2/i386 passes all tests with 7.1RC3.
My previous test failure on this platform was due to the timezone
information on the test system not being standard; once that was
corrected all tests pass.
It is still necessary to add -ltermcap after -ledit in
src/Makefile.global to have functional history editing in psql.
Regards,
Giles
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2892+ messages in thread
* Re: Re: Call for platforms
@ 2001-04-07 18:09 Tom Ivar Helbekkmo <[email protected]>
parent: Giles Lean <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 1 reply; 2892+ messages in thread
From: Tom Ivar Helbekkmo @ 2001-04-07 18:09 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Giles Lean <[email protected]>; +Cc: [email protected]; pgsql-hackers
Giles Lean <[email protected]> writes:
> It is still necessary to add -ltermcap after -ledit in
> src/Makefile.global to have functional history editing in psql.
This is a weakness in the configure script: it goes through a loop
where it tries to link a program that calls readline() with, in order,
"-lreadline", "-lreadline -ltermcap", "-lreadline -lncurses",
"-lreadline -lcurses", "-ledit", "-ledit -ltermcap", "-ledit
-lncurses" and "-ledit -lcurses". The first link that succeeds wil
determine which libraries are used. However, on some platforms with
dynamic libraries, the link will succeed as soon as readline() is
present -- but the shared library that contains it doesn't contain a
complete specification of all other libraries it needs at run-time
(the executable is expected to hold this information), and the program
fails at run-time even though it linked without any error message.
I don't know how the situation could best be improved, though...
-tih
--
The basic difference is this: hackers build things, crackers break them.
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2892+ messages in thread
* Re: Re: Call for platforms
@ 2001-04-07 19:01 Peter Eisentraut <[email protected]>
parent: Tom Ivar Helbekkmo <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 1 reply; 2892+ messages in thread
From: Peter Eisentraut @ 2001-04-07 19:01 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Tom Ivar Helbekkmo <[email protected]>; +Cc: Giles Lean <[email protected]>; [email protected]; pgsql-hackers
Tom Ivar Helbekkmo writes:
> Giles Lean <[email protected]> writes:
>
> > It is still necessary to add -ltermcap after -ledit in
> > src/Makefile.global to have functional history editing in psql.
>
> This is a weakness in the configure script: it goes through a loop
> where it tries to link a program that calls readline() with, in order,
> "-lreadline", "-lreadline -ltermcap", "-lreadline -lncurses",
> "-lreadline -lcurses", "-ledit", "-ledit -ltermcap", "-ledit
> -lncurses" and "-ledit -lcurses". The first link that succeeds wil
> determine which libraries are used. However, on some platforms with
> dynamic libraries, the link will succeed as soon as readline() is
> present -- but the shared library that contains it doesn't contain a
> complete specification of all other libraries it needs at run-time
> (the executable is expected to hold this information), and the program
> fails at run-time even though it linked without any error message.
On such a platform it would hardly be possible to detect anything with any
reliably. A linker that links a program "succesfully" while the program
really needs more libraries to be runnable isn't very useful.
--
Peter Eisentraut [email protected] http://yi.org/peter-e/
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2892+ messages in thread
* Re: Re: Call for platforms
@ 2001-04-07 19:41 Tom Ivar Helbekkmo <[email protected]>
parent: Peter Eisentraut <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2892+ messages in thread
From: Tom Ivar Helbekkmo @ 2001-04-07 19:41 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Peter Eisentraut <[email protected]>; +Cc: Giles Lean <[email protected]>; [email protected]; pgsql-hackers
Peter Eisentraut <[email protected]> writes:
> On such a platform it would hardly be possible to detect anything with any
> reliably. A linker that links a program "succesfully" while the program
> really needs more libraries to be runnable isn't very useful.
You're right, of course -- it's a bug in the linkage loader on the
platform in question. NetBSD/vax has it:
$ uname -a
NetBSD varg.i.eunet.no 1.5T NetBSD 1.5T (VARG) #4: Thu Apr 5 23:38:04 CEST 2001
[email protected]:/usr/src/sys/arch/vax/compile/VARG vax
$ cat > foo.c
int main (int argc, char **argv) { readline(); }
$ cc -o foo foo.c
/tmp/ccFTO4Mu.o: Undefined symbol `_readline'referenced from text segment
collect2: ld returned 1 exit status
$ cc -o foo foo.c -ledit
$ echo $?
0
$ ./foo
/usr/libexec/ld.so: Undefined symbol "_tputs"in foo:/usr/lib/libedit.so.2.5
$ echo $?
1
$ ldd foo
foo:
-ledit.2 => /usr/lib/libedit.so.2.5 (0x181b000)
-lc.12 => /usr/lib/libc.so.12.74 (0x182d000)
$
-tih
--
The basic difference is this: hackers build things, crackers break them.
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2892+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2892+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2892+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2892+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2892+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2892+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2892+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2892+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2892+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2892+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2892+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2892+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2892+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2892+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2892+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2892+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2892+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2892+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2892+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2892+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2892+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2892+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2892+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2892+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2892+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2892+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2892+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2892+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2892+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2892+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2892+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2892+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2892+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2892+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2892+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2892+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2892+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2892+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2892+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2892+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2892+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2892+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2892+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2892+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2892+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2892+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2892+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2892+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2892+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2892+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2892+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2892+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2892+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2892+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2892+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2892+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2892+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2892+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2892+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2892+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2892+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2892+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2892+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2892+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2892+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2892+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2892+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2892+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2892+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2892+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2892+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2892+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2892+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2892+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2892+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2892+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2892+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2892+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2892+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2892+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2892+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2892+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2892+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2892+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2892+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2892+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2892+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2892+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2892+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2892+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2892+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2892+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2892+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2892+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2892+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2892+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2892+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2892+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2892+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2892+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2892+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2892+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2892+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2892+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2892+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2892+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2892+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2892+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2892+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2892+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2892+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2892+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2892+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2892+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2892+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2892+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2892+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2892+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2892+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2892+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2892+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2892+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2892+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2892+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2892+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2892+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2892+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2892+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2892+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2892+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2892+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2892+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2892+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2892+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2892+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2892+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2892+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2892+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2892+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2892+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2892+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2892+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2892+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2892+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2892+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2892+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2892+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2892+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2892+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2892+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2892+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2892+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2892+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2892+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2892+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2892+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2892+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2892+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2892+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2892+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2892+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2892+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2892+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2892+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2892+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2892+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2892+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2892+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2892+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2892+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2892+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2892+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2892+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2892+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2892+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2892+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2892+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2892+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2892+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2892+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2892+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2892+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2892+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2892+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2892+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2892+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2892+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2892+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2892+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2892+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2892+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2892+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2892+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2892+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2892+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2892+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2892+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2892+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2892+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2892+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2892+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2892+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2892+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2892+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2892+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2892+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2892+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2892+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2892+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2892+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2892+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2892+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2892+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2892+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2892+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2892+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2892+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2892+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2892+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2892+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2892+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2892+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2892+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2892+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2892+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2892+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2892+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2892+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2892+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2892+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2892+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2892+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2892+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2892+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2892+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2892+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2892+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2892+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2892+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2892+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2892+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2892+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2892+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2892+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2892+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2892+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2892+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2892+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2892+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2892+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2892+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2892+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2892+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2892+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2892+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2892+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2892+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2892+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2892+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2892+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2892+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2892+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2892+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2892+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2892+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2892+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2892+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2892+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2892+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2892+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2892+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2892+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2892+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2892+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2892+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2892+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2892+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2892+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2892+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2892+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2892+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2892+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2892+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2892+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2892+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2892+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2892+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2892+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2892+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2892+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2892+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2892+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2892+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2892+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2892+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2892+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2892+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2892+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2892+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2892+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2892+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2892+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2892+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2892+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2892+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2892+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2892+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2892+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2892+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2892+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2892+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2892+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2892+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2892+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2892+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2892+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2892+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2892+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2892+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2892+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2892+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2892+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2892+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2892+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2892+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2892+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2892+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2892+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2892+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2892+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2892+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2892+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2892+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2892+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2892+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2892+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2892+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2892+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2892+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2892+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2892+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2892+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2892+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2892+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2892+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2892+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2892+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2892+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2892+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2892+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2892+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2892+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2892+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2892+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2892+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2892+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2892+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2892+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2892+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2892+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2892+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2892+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2892+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2892+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2892+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2892+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2892+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2892+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2892+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2892+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2892+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2892+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2892+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2892+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2892+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2892+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2892+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2892+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2892+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2892+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2892+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2892+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2892+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2892+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2892+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2892+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2892+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2892+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2892+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2892+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2892+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2892+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2892+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2892+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2892+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2892+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2892+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2892+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2892+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2892+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2892+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2892+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2892+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2892+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2892+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2892+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2892+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2892+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2892+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2892+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2892+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2892+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2892+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2892+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2892+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2892+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2892+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2892+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2892+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2892+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2892+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2892+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2892+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2892+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2892+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2892+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2892+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2892+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2892+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2892+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2892+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2892+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2892+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2892+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2892+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2892+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2892+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2892+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2892+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2892+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2892+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2892+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2892+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2892+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2892+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2892+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2892+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2892+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2892+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2892+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2892+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2892+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2892+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2892+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2892+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2892+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2892+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2892+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2892+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2892+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2892+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2892+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2892+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2892+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2892+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2892+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2892+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2892+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2892+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2892+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2892+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2892+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2892+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2892+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2892+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2892+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2892+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2892+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2892+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2892+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2892+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2892+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2892+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2892+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2892+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2892+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2892+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2892+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2892+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2892+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2892+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2892+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2892+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2892+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2892+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2892+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2892+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2892+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2892+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2892+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2892+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2892+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2892+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2892+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2892+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2892+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2892+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2892+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2892+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2892+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2892+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2892+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2892+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2892+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2892+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2892+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2892+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2892+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2892+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2892+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2892+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2892+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2892+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2892+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2892+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2892+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2892+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2892+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2892+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2892+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2892+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2892+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2892+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2892+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2892+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2892+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2892+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2892+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2892+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2892+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2892+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2892+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2892+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2892+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2892+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2892+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2892+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2892+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2892+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2892+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2892+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2892+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2892+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2892+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2892+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2892+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2892+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2892+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2892+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2892+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2892+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2892+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2892+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2892+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2892+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2892+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2892+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2892+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2892+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2892+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2892+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2892+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2892+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2892+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2892+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2892+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2892+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2892+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2892+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2892+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2892+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2892+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2892+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2892+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2892+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2892+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2892+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2892+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2892+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2892+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2892+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2892+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2892+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2892+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2892+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2892+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2892+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2892+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2892+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2892+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2892+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2892+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2892+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2892+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2892+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2892+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2892+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2892+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2892+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2892+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2892+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2892+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2892+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2892+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2892+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2892+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2892+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2892+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2892+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2892+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2892+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2892+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2892+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2892+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2892+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2892+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2892+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2892+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2892+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2892+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2892+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2892+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2892+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2892+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2892+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2892+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2892+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2892+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2892+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2892+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2892+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2892+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2892+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2892+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2892+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2892+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2892+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2892+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2892+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2892+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2892+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2892+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2892+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2892+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2892+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2892+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2892+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2892+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2892+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2892+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2892+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2892+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2892+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2892+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2892+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2892+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2892+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2892+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2892+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2892+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2892+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2892+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2892+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2892+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2892+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2892+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2892+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2892+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2892+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2892+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2892+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2892+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2892+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2892+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2892+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2892+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2892+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2892+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2892+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2892+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2892+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2892+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2892+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2892+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2892+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2892+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2892+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2892+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2892+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2892+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2892+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2892+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2892+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2892+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2892+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2892+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2892+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2892+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2892+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2892+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2892+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2892+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2892+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2892+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2892+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2892+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2892+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2892+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2892+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2892+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2892+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2892+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2892+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2892+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2892+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2892+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2892+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2892+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2892+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2892+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2892+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2892+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2892+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2892+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2892+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2892+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2892+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2892+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2892+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2892+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2892+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2892+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2892+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2892+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2892+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2892+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2892+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2892+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2892+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2892+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2892+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2892+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2892+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2892+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2892+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2892+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2892+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2892+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2892+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2892+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2892+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2892+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2892+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2892+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2892+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2892+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2892+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2892+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2892+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2892+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2892+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2892+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2892+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2892+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2892+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2892+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2892+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2892+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2892+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2892+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2892+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2892+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2892+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2892+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2892+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2892+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2892+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2892+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2892+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2892+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2892+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2892+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2892+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2892+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2892+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2892+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2892+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2892+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2892+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2892+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2892+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2892+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2892+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2892+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2892+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2892+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2892+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2892+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2892+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2892+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2892+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2892+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2892+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2892+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2892+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2892+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2892+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2892+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2892+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2892+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2892+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2892+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2892+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2892+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2892+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2892+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2892+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2892+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2892+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2892+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2892+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2892+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2892+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2892+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2892+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2892+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2892+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2892+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2892+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2892+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2892+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2892+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2892+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2892+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2892+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2892+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2892+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2892+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2892+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2892+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2892+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2892+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2892+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2892+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2892+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2892+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2892+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2892+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2892+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2892+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2892+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2892+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2892+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2892+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2892+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2892+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2892+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2892+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2892+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2892+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2892+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2892+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2892+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2892+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2892+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2892+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2892+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2892+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2892+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2892+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2892+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2892+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2892+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2892+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2892+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2892+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2892+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2892+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2892+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2892+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2892+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2892+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2892+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2892+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2892+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2892+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2892+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2892+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2892+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2892+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2892+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2892+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2892+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2892+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2892+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2892+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2892+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2892+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2892+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2892+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2892+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2892+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2892+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2892+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2892+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2892+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2892+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2892+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2892+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2892+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2892+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2892+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2892+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2892+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2892+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2892+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2892+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2892+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2892+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2892+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2892+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2892+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2892+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2892+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2892+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2892+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2892+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2892+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2892+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2892+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2892+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2892+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2892+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2892+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2892+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2892+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2892+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2892+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2892+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2892+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2892+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2892+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2892+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2892+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2892+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2892+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2892+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2892+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2892+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2892+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2892+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2892+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2892+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2892+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2892+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2892+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2892+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2892+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2892+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2892+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2892+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2892+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2892+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2892+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2892+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2892+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2892+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2892+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2892+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2892+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2892+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2892+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2892+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2892+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2892+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2892+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2892+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2892+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2892+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2892+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2892+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2892+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2892+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2892+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2892+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2892+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2892+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2892+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2892+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2892+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2892+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2892+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2892+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2892+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2892+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2892+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2892+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2892+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2892+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2892+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2892+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2892+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2892+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2892+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2892+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2892+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2892+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2892+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2892+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2892+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2892+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2892+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2892+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2892+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2892+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2892+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2892+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2892+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2892+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2892+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2892+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2892+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2892+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2892+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2892+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2892+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2892+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2892+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2892+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2892+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2892+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2892+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2892+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2892+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2892+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2892+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2892+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2892+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2892+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2892+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2892+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2892+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2892+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2892+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2892+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2892+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2892+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2892+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2892+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2892+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2892+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2892+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2892+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2892+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2892+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2892+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2892+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2892+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2892+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2892+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2892+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2892+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2892+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2892+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2892+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2892+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2892+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2892+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2892+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2892+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2892+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2892+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2892+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2892+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2892+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2892+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2892+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2892+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2892+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2892+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2892+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2892+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2892+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2892+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2892+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2892+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2892+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2892+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2892+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2892+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2892+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2892+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2892+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2892+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2892+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2892+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2892+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2892+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2892+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2892+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2892+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2892+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2892+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2892+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2892+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2892+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2892+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2892+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2892+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2892+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2892+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2892+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2892+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2892+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2892+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2892+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2892+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2892+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2892+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2892+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2892+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2892+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2892+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2892+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2892+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2892+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2892+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2892+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2892+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2892+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2892+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2892+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2892+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2892+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2892+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2892+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2892+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2892+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2892+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2892+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2892+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2892+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2892+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2892+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2892+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2892+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2892+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2892+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2892+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2892+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2892+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2892+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2892+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2892+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2892+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2892+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2892+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2892+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2892+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2892+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2892+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2892+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2892+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2892+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2892+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2892+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2892+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2892+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2892+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2892+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2892+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2892+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2892+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2892+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2892+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2892+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2892+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2892+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2892+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2892+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2892+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2892+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2892+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2892+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2892+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2892+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2892+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2892+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2892+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2892+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2892+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2892+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2892+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2892+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2892+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2892+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2892+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2892+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2892+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2892+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2892+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2892+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2892+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2892+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2892+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2892+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2892+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2892+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2892+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2892+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2892+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2892+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2892+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2892+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2892+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2892+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2892+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2892+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2892+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2892+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2892+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2892+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2892+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2892+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2892+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2892+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2892+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2892+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2892+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2892+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2892+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2892+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2892+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2892+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2892+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2892+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2892+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2892+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2892+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2892+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2892+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2892+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2892+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2892+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2892+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2892+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2892+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2892+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2892+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2892+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2892+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2892+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2892+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2892+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2892+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2892+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2892+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2892+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2892+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2892+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2892+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2892+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2892+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2892+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2892+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2892+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2892+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2892+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2892+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2892+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2892+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2892+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2892+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2892+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2892+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2892+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2892+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2892+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2892+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2892+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2892+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2892+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2892+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2892+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2892+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2892+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2892+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2892+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2892+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2892+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2892+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2892+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2892+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2892+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2892+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2892+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2892+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2892+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2892+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2892+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2892+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2892+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2892+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2892+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2892+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2892+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2892+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2892+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2892+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2892+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2892+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2892+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2892+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2892+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2892+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2892+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2892+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2892+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2892+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2892+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2892+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2892+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2892+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2892+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2892+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2892+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2892+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2892+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2892+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2892+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2892+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2892+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2892+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2892+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2892+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2892+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2892+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2892+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2892+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2892+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2892+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2892+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2892+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2892+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2892+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2892+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2892+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2892+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2892+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2892+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2892+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2892+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2892+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2892+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2892+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2892+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2892+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2892+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2892+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2892+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2892+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2892+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2892+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2892+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2892+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2892+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2892+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2892+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2892+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2892+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2892+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2892+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2892+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2892+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2892+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2892+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2892+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2892+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2892+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2892+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2892+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2892+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2892+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2892+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2892+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2892+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2892+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2892+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2892+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2892+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2892+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2892+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2892+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2892+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2892+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2892+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2892+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2892+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2892+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2892+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2892+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2892+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2892+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2892+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2892+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2892+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2892+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2892+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2892+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2892+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2892+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2892+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2892+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2892+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2892+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2892+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2892+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2892+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2892+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2892+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2892+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2892+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2892+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2892+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2892+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2892+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2892+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2892+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2892+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2892+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2892+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2892+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2892+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2892+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2892+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2892+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2892+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2892+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2892+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2892+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2892+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2892+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2892+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2892+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2892+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2892+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2892+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2892+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2892+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2892+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2892+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2892+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2892+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2892+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2892+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2892+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2892+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2892+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2892+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2892+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2892+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2892+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2892+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2892+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2892+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2892+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2892+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2892+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2892+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2892+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2892+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2892+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2892+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2892+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2892+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2892+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2892+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2892+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2892+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2892+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2892+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2892+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2892+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2892+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2892+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2892+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2892+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2892+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2892+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2892+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2892+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2892+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2892+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2892+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2892+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2892+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2892+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2892+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2892+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2892+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2892+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2892+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2892+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2892+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2892+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2892+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2892+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2892+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2892+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2892+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2892+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2892+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2892+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2892+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2892+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2892+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2892+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2892+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2892+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2892+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2892+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2892+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2892+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2892+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2892+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2892+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2892+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2892+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2892+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2892+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2892+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2892+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2892+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2892+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2892+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2892+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2892+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2892+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2892+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2892+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2892+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2892+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2892+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2892+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2892+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2892+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2892+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2892+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2892+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2892+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2892+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2892+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2892+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2892+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2892+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2892+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2892+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2892+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2892+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2892+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2892+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2892+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2892+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2892+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2892+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2892+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2892+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2892+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2892+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2892+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2892+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2892+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2892+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2892+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2892+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2892+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2892+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2892+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2892+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2892+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2892+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2892+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2892+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2892+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2892+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2892+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2892+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2892+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2892+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2892+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2892+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2892+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2892+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2892+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2892+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2892+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2892+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2892+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2892+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2892+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2892+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2892+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2892+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2892+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2892+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2892+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2892+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2892+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2892+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2892+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2892+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2892+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2892+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2892+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2892+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2892+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2892+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2892+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2892+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2892+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2892+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2892+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2892+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2892+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2892+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2892+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2892+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2892+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2892+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2892+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2892+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2892+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2892+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2892+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2892+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2892+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2892+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2892+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2892+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2892+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2892+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2892+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2892+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2892+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2892+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2892+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2892+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2892+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2892+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2892+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2892+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2892+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2892+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2892+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2892+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2892+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2892+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2892+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2892+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2892+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2892+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2892+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2892+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2892+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2892+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2892+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2892+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2892+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2892+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2892+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2892+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2892+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2892+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2892+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2892+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2892+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2892+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2892+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2892+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2892+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2892+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2892+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2892+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2892+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2892+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2892+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2892+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2892+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2892+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2892+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2892+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2892+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2892+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2892+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2892+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2892+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2892+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2892+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2892+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2892+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2892+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2892+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2892+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2892+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2892+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2892+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2892+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2892+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2892+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2892+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2892+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2892+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2892+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2892+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2892+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2892+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2892+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2892+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2892+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2892+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2892+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2892+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2892+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2892+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2892+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2892+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2892+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2892+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2892+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2892+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2892+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2892+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2892+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2892+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2892+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2892+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2892+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2892+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2892+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2892+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2892+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2892+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2892+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2892+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2892+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2892+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2892+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2892+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2892+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2892+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2892+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2892+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2892+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2892+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2892+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2892+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2892+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2892+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2892+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2892+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2892+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2892+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2892+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2892+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2892+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2892+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2892+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2892+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2892+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2892+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2892+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2892+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2892+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2892+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2892+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2892+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2892+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2892+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2892+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2892+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2892+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2892+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2892+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2892+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2892+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2892+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2892+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2892+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2892+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2892+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2892+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2892+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2892+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2892+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2892+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2892+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2892+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2892+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2892+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2892+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2892+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2892+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2892+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2892+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2892+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2892+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2892+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2892+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2892+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2892+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2892+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2892+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2892+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2892+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2892+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2892+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2892+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2892+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2892+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2892+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2892+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2892+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2892+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2892+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2892+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2892+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2892+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2892+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2892+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2892+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2892+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2892+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2892+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2892+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2892+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2892+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2892+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2892+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2892+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2892+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2892+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2892+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2892+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2892+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2892+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2892+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2892+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2892+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2892+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2892+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2892+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2892+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2892+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2892+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2892+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2892+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2892+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2892+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2892+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2892+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2892+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2892+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2892+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2892+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2892+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2892+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2892+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2892+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2892+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2892+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2892+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2892+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2892+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2892+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2892+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2892+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2892+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2892+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2892+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2892+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2892+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2892+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2892+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2892+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2892+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2892+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2892+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2892+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2892+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2892+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2892+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2892+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2892+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2892+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2892+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2892+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2892+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2892+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2892+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2892+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2892+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2892+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2892+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2892+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2892+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2892+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2892+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2892+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2892+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2892+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2892+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2892+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2892+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2892+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2892+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2892+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2892+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2892+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2892+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2892+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2892+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2892+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2892+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2892+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2892+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2892+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2892+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2892+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2892+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2892+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2892+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2892+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2892+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2892+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2892+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2892+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2892+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2892+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2892+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2892+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2892+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2892+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2892+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2892+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2892+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2892+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2892+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2892+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2892+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2892+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2892+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2892+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2892+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2892+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2892+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2892+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2892+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2892+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2892+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2892+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2892+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2892+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2892+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2892+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2892+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2892+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2892+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2892+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2892+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2892+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2892+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2892+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2892+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2892+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2892+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2892+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2892+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2892+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2892+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2892+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2892+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2892+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2892+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2026-04-03 15:23 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 2892+ messages (download: mbox mbox.gz follow: Atom feed)
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2001-04-07 04:43 Re: Call for platforms Giles Lean <[email protected]>
2001-04-07 18:09 ` Tom Ivar Helbekkmo <[email protected]>
2001-04-07 19:01 ` Peter Eisentraut <[email protected]>
2001-04-07 19:41 ` Tom Ivar Helbekkmo <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy 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